SISTERS AWARD

JOIN! DISCUSS! VOTE!

JESSICA WATSON ATTEMPTS TO BE THE YOUNGEST ROUND THE GLOBE.
JESSICA'S BLOG IS ON DAILY PUMA.

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS FROM JESSICA
JESSICA WATSON, DAY 53 OF HER VOYAGE AROUND THE WORLD.

Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers

Serious Customers Welcome.

MADE IN AMERICA

RUSS BASSETT STORAGE SYSTEMS. (RUSS BASSETT is not a PUMA company, but they do make GREAT PRODUCTS, and they MAKE THEM in AMERICA!

Clinton Foundation

Meta

This is the kind of Health Care that is Beneath Barack Obama.

With apologizes to the filmmaker for politicizing his film, but NOBODY vetted Barack Obama after Barack Obama politicized his own mother's cancer for his own political gain during the 2008 democratic race, and then again in the presidential debates.

Did Barack Obama tend to his own mother in any personal way during her last couple of years of life, when she was dying of cancer in Hawaii?

Or, did Barack Obama CHOOSE to fly over Hawaii, where his mother was dying of cancer, so he could go to Bali to finish writing his book about his sperm donor father?

If I am wrong, or can be proven wrong about my concern, then I will stand corrected. But until then, the timeline I have been able to put together shows that Barack Obama chose to finish writing his book instead of being with his mother.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

As time goes on, the PUMA movement appears to be simultaneously expanding, and also dissipating.

DailyPUMA thinks it is important to review and remember what the original PUMA flash point was that caused many different but formerly democratic support groups to declare themselves PUMAs, albeit their own unique brand of PUMA.

In my opinion the flash points that created PUMA were generated by media bias against Hillary Clinton. The media, led by Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, MSNBC, Arianna Huffington of Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and then in rapid succession, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Atlantic Monthly, Move ON, Media Matters, CNN and most definitely a few others as well, began slamming Hillary Clinton with crazy accusations while simultaneously not vetting Barack Obama.

The media consortium mentioned above ALL began putting a decidedly pro Barack Obama slant on their news reporting, while also creating an anti Hillary Clinton slant as well. Money may have played a really big role in the media bias against Hillary Clinton as the Barack Obama campaign was able to dole out a lot of money to the media and the internet in the form of advertising revenue.

Unfortunately, a certain, significant percentage of Barack Obama's donations may have been illegally gathered. Besides Barack Obama's campaign spending gargantuan amounts of money all over the media and the internet, the ill gotten donations were also used to entice SEVERAL DOZEN high profile politicians and celebrities to strategically give their support to Barack Obama even as Barack Obama's numbers were sliding over the final 10 weeks of the democratic nomination contests.

PUMA's were outraged that democratic political higher ups and the media would choose to "pre-favor" one democratic candidate over another, especially when the newly "unfavored" candidate (Hillary Clinton) had waited for her chance and patiently absorbed a couple decades of political interactions in such an amazingly divergent set of surroundings.

Does anyone recall ever hearing the media reporting that celebrities and democratic icons wanted the american people to choose with their vote the next democratic nominee?

All I remember hearing and seeing from the media was the pomp and circumstance of the next celebrity or politician being trotted out in support of Barack Obama. Many of these endorsements were timed to give the media an excuse to IGNORE significant Hillary Clinton primary wins.

Being married to Bill Clinton and an active participant in his political career had made Hillary Clinton uniquely qualified to view how political processes worked on a state level, and then on a federal level as well. Then to round out her own qualifications, Hillary Clinton served in the senate as well.

What was most painful for myself to witness was Hillary Clinton actually winning more delegates than Barack Obama from all of the democratic primary contests, even when the the votes of Florida and Michigan were excluded.

So more than a year later, where does that leave all PUMAs? PUMA's now support so many diverse beliefs and causes that it would probably be difficult to get them to agree to any one thing in mass.

However, I believe that it is important for anyone who believes they are a PUMA to at least agree on a couple of key points, the biggest key point being that Hillary Clinton was both unfairly treated by the media and the democratic party in 2008, and that we should STRONGLY consider peace based retribution against those who really had no business trying to derail Hillary Clinton in 2008 but did so just so they could grab their moment of glory and possibly better position themselves for some kind of business or financial reward as well.

If anyone on the list were to ever to publicly admit to putting financial gain or business opportunities as the reason they backstabbed Hillary Clinton, then they could be removed from the "don't support list".

Monday, September 28, 2009

(Edit update Oct. 6th, 2009). It dawned on me a few days ago that it is easier to just leave a comment in the comments section reminding us all of Michael Moore's "past". Daily PUMA is however beguiled that a couple allegedly pro Hillary blogs don't put a dailypuma link on their blogs yet do put links to blogs that have shown very tepid "support" for Hillary Clinton.

DailyPUMA is asking/requesting/demanding/notifying that any PUMA doing an article about Michael Moore's new movie that does not also devote some time in the same article to Michael Moore's betrayal of Hillary Clinton last year, will have their blog removed from Daily PUMA for 60 days. And it will be up to you to ask to be re-added, and of course, you will be, as long as you ask after 60 days. (Edit note, change in plans, your blog will probably be moved to the far left column of DailyPUMA)

If you are a PUMA and jump on the Michael Moore bandwagon while pretending he was not one of the reasons Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination last year, you are an idiot. If you don't care that Michael Moore helped prevent Hillary Clinton from getting the democratic nomination in 2008, then you're not really a PUMA anyways.

If PUMA's don't mobilize now and boycott Michael Moore over his supremely idiotic reasons for not just staying on the sidelines last year, but his actually actively campaigning against Hillary Clinton in 2008, being a PUMA will simply have little meaning.

PUMA's won't have any real political influence if they don't exercise it when it needs to be exercised.

If PUMA's discuss Michael Moore's new movie without mentioning his betrayal of Hillary Clinton last year, then PUMA's have become posers who cry victimhood about Hillary Clinton while doing nothing to stop the several idiots that stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton in 2008.

Unacceptable.

Daily PUMA has already removed one blog, (Edit note, change in plans, blogs that clearly show they are PUMA-lite or less will probably just be moved to the left column) but I'm sure the blog owner does not care since they haven't had the courtesy to ever put up a Daily PUMA link anyways.

Just in case some of you are chuckling because Daily PUMA only gets a few hundred hits a day...The real reality is that Daily PUMA gives out 10 to 20 times more hits than it receives.

That means up to 4,000 hits a day get "shared" among DailyPUMA blogs because of DailyPUMA, perhaps that means 100,000 hits a month are being doled out by Daily PUMA to other PUMA blogs, one million hits a year that come FROM DailyPUMA to other PUMA blogs.

It would be nice to be listed on all the blogs DailyPUMA supports but that is up to the blog owners. Just beware that the few blogs that don't carry a DailyPUMA blog are helping to suffocate your own PUMA blog.

As the library of DailyPUMA articles grows, DailyPUMA receives a significant amount of non PUMA's to its sites every day. As a result, all of these first time readers get exposed to all the other PUMA blogs.

Let's not forget why PUMA's were founded. They were founded because of the blatant mistreatment Hillary Clinton received from the media and the many who had no business taking a position, and who may have taken a position against Hillary Clinton specifically to gain financially or politically from the ill gotten financial endless pit Barack Obama attached himself to.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

I'd like anyone who reads DailyPUMA and considers themselves to be a Hillary Clinton supporter to consider boycotting Michael Moore's new movie, which I won't even name.

Just as it was a "difficult" decision for Michael Moore, (who "loved" Hillary Clinton prior to stabbing her in the proverbial back) to denounce Hillary Clinton, it is also a tough decision for me to to boycott Moore's new movie.

In a future article, I WILL break down every one of Moore's reasons for "changing" from a pro Hillary Clinton stance to an anti Hillary Clinton stance in 2008, and then refute ALL of the points he used to come to his decision.

Please consider boycotting Mr. Moore's movie. If you can see it free, legally, by all means do so.

If you review and publicize Moore's new movie, you probably help him profit. If we can focus instead on how Michael Moore betrayed Hillary Clinton in 2008, and could possibly have been a tipping point at a crucial time in the 2008 democratic race, we can show that there are consequences to trying to swing a political race for what might have been ulterior motives, and most definitely was based on very flawed "logic".

If there were no ulterior motives, maybe, just maybe, Moore could have consulted with others who could have easily debunked EVERY ONE OF HIS REASONS for not only not supporting Hillary Clinton, but for actually being part of the reason Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

(Edit update - Sept.30, 2009) lol, apparently media matters does have a blog. Not once in the time I have received email from them can I recall a blog ever being mentioned, whenever I clicked on their article links, it always takes me to a Media Matters page that has no place to comment)

Media Matters style of slinging out their own version of the truth, but having no place for us every day folk to respond, has kind of become old school, has it not?

I would consider the legitimacy of their points of view more often if I knew we all could at least have an opportunity to add our own comments, in a comments section, at the bottom of their articles, somewhere on the internet.

Isn't it time, Media Matters, to come out of your ivory tower and actually allow people to respond to your viewpoints?

Could the ensuing "costs" to run what looks like a sham contest have been used to to divert tax deductible savings to Barack Obama's campaign?

Oprah Winfrey holds a nationwide contest and the four prizes are free consultations with a bunch of financial planners from Chase Bank??? Are you kidding me?

NO PRIZE MONEY, JUST A CONSULTATION? What kind of a prize is that? A consulting prize from the richest woman on the planet with no prize money attached?

The Oprah Winfrey / Chase Bank contest was run in 2008. May I ask who was paid to sift through all the applications? What kind of suspicious tax deductions were created by deducting all the hours it took to run a contest that offers no prize money?

What did it cost to create this Oprah Winfrey / Chase Bank contest? What did it then cost to promote the contest, evaluate each and every one of the 9,000 applicants, cull the list down, interview the final 100, cull the list some more, interview the final 10, and then figure out who the final four contest winners would be?

Is it not income tax fraud to deduct thousands upon thousands of dollars in costs for a prize devoid of cash? Isn't this how the ACORN led Barack Obama crowd runs? Bill out time for a suspicious endeavor and then pretend it was actually worth something and use it as a huge tax deduction?

I would guess that deductions were probably flying all over the place on both Oprah Magazine and Chase Bank's part. What if you found out that the total tax deductions reached a million dollars, and that a check for a hundred thousand dollars was then magically donated to ACORN?

I believe Oprah Winfrey is a greedy fraud. Yeah she cares, yeah she can put out a good TV show, but the insidious sinisterness of how she colluded with Chase Bank during Barack Obama's 2008 campaign looks like meddling beyond being a talk show host and delving into an area she does not belong.

I believe if someone cracks the books they will find huge cost deductions related to what I think was a sham contest.

So what did it cost to actually put such a contest on? Is it ethical to create a contest that costs a heck of a lot more to run then the worth of the prizes, when the prizes are basically worth nothing more than somebody volunteering a couple hours of their time?

A contest in which the "grand prize" is four women receiving free financial consultation from Chase Bank, are you frickin kidding me? How about Oprah throw in some cash so the Chase Bank "experts" actually have something to discuss with the winners!

...Was HuffPo biased toward Obama? After the site reported that Obama said "bitter" working-class Americans "cling to guns or religion," HuffPo co-founder Ken Lerer, who himself said to be unhappy about the story, rushed to talk with angry Obama campaign operatives. That would be the same Lerer who convened a fundraiser for Obama at his apartment the year prior, when he was still CEO of HuffingtonPost. It's worth at least asking whether the Clinton campaign's accusation that the site was a "conveyor belt" for pro-Obama propaganda was more than mere campaign flackery.Also, why did HuffPo delay covering the latest scandal stories on Democratic politician John Edwards, despite having broken some of the earliest ones?

In this instance, Oprah basically pays her staff to run a "contest" that gives four woman ADVICE! FROM CHASE BANK!

How dare these two democratic party saboteurs, Oprah Winfrey and Arianna Huffington, TELL ANYBODY how they should feel when their very own political principles are so shady and shody they actually shot down the first viable female presidential candidate in the history of this country, and probably did it for FINANCIAL GAIN.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Insurance companies and the media tend to take the position that people who don't buy flood insurance in flood regions sort of get what they deserve. However, what about when a flood happens in an area that is not deemed a flood risk, such as Atlanta?

Maybe you live in an area that has never been flooded before.

What if a flood hit and you didn't carry flood insurance? Are you totally at fault? Or, were you being a responsible homeowner by carrying other types of insurance that were more likely to hit in your area, such as fire, quake, theft, perhaps you were even damage from high winds and rain storms.

But what if you just weren't covered for non-stop raining that went on for a week and then caused massive flooding?

What if the damage was not caused by the rain falling on your home, but by the massive runoff that then flooded your home?

What if the flooding was exacerbated because the area where you live had "flourished" and the additional cement and roadways that covered more and more soil caused rain runoff to not get as easily absorbed into the ground thus reducing the risk of flooding?

Is it "fair" if an insurance company happily ensures denser and denser population growth but then denies responsibility for the resulting greater and greater flood probability from rain running off of paved over earth?

Or, can the insurance company argue that because an area was absolutely considered not likely to flood, that the flood insurance policy was soooo cheap it was affordable by all?

If you have a flood insurance experience please contribute an answer in the comments section.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

I am just so fed up with the non vetting that Barack Obama, his relationship with Jamie Dimon of Chase bank, and the FAKE AND FRAUDULENT tens of millions of dollars that Barack Obama gladly accepted in his 2008 presidential run, that I feel it necessary to add on one new observation.

After the ACORN videos depicting a pimp running for congress and his prostitute wife and their brood of underage salvadorian prostitutes who can be used as a tax deduction made the news from coast to coast, I read that ACORN would have re-education classes, and that they would all happen very quickly in all of their offices all over the country.

Ever go into a Trader Joe's or a Costco and ask if they have any more of something? Usually the answer is, "No, we put it all out on the store floor". In other words, there is no huge stock waiting to hit the floor.

So one must ask, if ACORN is already located all over the country, can there be an EVEN BIGGER "INVENTORY" of ACORN HIGHER UPS that can now "retrain" all of their workers in such a short period of time?

So, where are all the ACORN educators coming from that the can hit each and every ACORN office within a weeks time? And my follow up question is.

If ACORN can retrain all of their workers so quickly, does it not become rather obvious that they HELPED BARACK OBAMA IN 2008 CHEAT IN THE CAUCUS CONTESTS and their mobilizing efforts WERE EASILY MANAGEABLE based on ACORN'S claim that they now will retrain ALL OF THEIR OFFICE STAFFS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY in about a weeks time!

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Many of you have seen the video below. However, what I find disturbing is what Jon Stewart said at the beginning...I've transcribed it...

Of course that's just the right wing lunatic fringe in this country "race baiting" with coded insinuations and incessant attacks, of community organizations such as ACORN...

Ever since Barack Obama emerged on the national stage the conservatives have been obsessed with the group, alleging that their thugs, are committing voter fraud, well those accusations didn't really pan out, but that won't stop their paranoia, as evidenced by this hidden camera investigation of an unlikely duo looking for tax help....

-----------------------------------------------------

"Those investigations didn't really pan out"..... Just what does that mean Mr. Stewart? Clearly there were no "real" investigations of ACORN in 2008, as you point out in the rest of YOUR OWN video, so, why are you even babbling about last year and trying to gloss over it as if ACORN did nothing wrong in support of Barack Obama, especially in the democratic caucus contests.

You know, last year Mr. Stewart, 2008, the year you knew it was hip and cool to back Barack Obama, to spur your own ratings to record levels by supporting Barack Obama, even though you KNEW he had not been vetted!

Later in the ACORN video clip link provided below Jon Stewart further distances himself from news journalism by saying he himself is not a journalist. How convenient. Last year it was ok to be the toast of the political world with your hip political show, but now this year, you are not one of them.

Reminds me of Huffington Post's shenanigans as well. HP is panicked at what they see as bankcentric policymaking by Barack Obama, yet it was HP that helped Barack Obama defeat Hillary Clinton by constantly bashing Hillary Clinton on a DAILY BASIS while constantly praising Barack Obama.

We need the bubblehead awards, for the tv and media personalities who most easily shift positions from year to year, always trying to stay with the in and hip crowd. I know who the first two nominees would be.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Has ACORN committed a crime if it is using taxpayer money to tell people how to cheat the government?

If ACORN personnel have committed crimes by using taxpayer money to cheat the government, then doesn't it stand to reason that if ACORN cheated during the 2008 democratic caucus contests that that is illegal as well?

Can I suggest a trade?

Drop charges against ACORN members presently accused of aiding and abetting a pimp to cheat the government, in exchange for revelations about any cheating and voter fraud that went on during the 2008 democratic caucus contests.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

I think it is important to note that the Ratigan column appears on Huffington Post. Huffington Post has already called Barack Obama the "Bank Centric Kid".

Huffington Post is also the internet "news source" that blasted Hillary Clinton on a daily basis during the 2008 democratic primaries and PRAISED Barack Obama on a daily basis. Without Huffington Post's interference, Hillary Clinton most likely would have been the democratic nominee in 2008.

It is a shame that we can find three powerful women such as Arianna Huffington, Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Palin, and know that if we put them in a room, they would have virtually nothing in common and unable to build any kind of a consensus of any kind.

Yet if we put three powerful men in a room, the odds are that at least two of them would form some kind of alliance or allegiance on some level. (think back to George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton and their tour around the world to raise money for Hurricane and Typhoon victims a few years ago. George Bush Sr. was OFFENDED and most likely DISGUSTED that he lost to Bill Clinton after only one term in office.)

Make it a game if you will, find three men in politics that completely annoy each other the way Palin, Clinton and Huffington do. I don't think it can be done.

Put Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Bill Richardson in a room, nope, some kind of alliance would happen between two of those fellows.

What about Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy (assuming he still were alive) and Jimmy Carter, Bill and Ted might work something out, maybe even Ted and Jimmy. Jimmy and Bill, definitely not.

What about Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, and....Bill Mahrer in a room, would the three scorn each other the way Huffington, Palin, and Hillary Clinton most likely would?, Nope, Bill and Bill would get along. Heck, didn't Rush even have Bill on his show once?

It is just kind of galling to me how women seem to neutralize each other and in the process let under qualified men such as Barack Obama slip through to positions not earned.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

I don't like giving added publicity to this type of behavior by Kanye West at the MTV awards Show, but what if this had been a woman going on stage to upstage a man? How would the media have handled that?

Terrifying anybody on stage when they are getting an award is worthy of a huge lawsuit, and in my opinion is ASSAULT. I sure hope Taylor Swift sues Kanye West and MTV, otherwise, MTV and Kanye West win in the publicity department.Here is the article.

I also find it strange that the actual interruption has been conveniently blocked by a cut away to the audience. It makes me wonder if it was staged, or cosmetically covered over after the fact by MTV.

News should not be doctored by inserting cutaways after the fact, show the goof Kanye West walking up on stage, show the actual moment of assault when he grabs the microphone out of Taylor Swift's hands.

Show it, MTV, don't sanitize it you hypocrites.

This video clip is cut off right when the audience started chanting Taylor Swifts name to help re-sanitize the stage after Kanye West fled the scene of his crime.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

As more and more ACORN violations and their drive to game the system at any cost come to light, when does Barack Obama consider apologizing to the american people for the dishonesty he incorporated in winning the 2008 democratic nomination?

The best thing Barack Obama could do is write the speech of a lifetime to explain his overexuberance in allowing excessive cheating and fraudulent campaign donations to steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton in 2008, resign, and run as Hillary Clinton's VP in 2012.

Barack Obama is so raw in his experience that he has sold out whatever vision he may have had to scalawags like ACORN, and the me first banking community headed by Jamie Dimon of Chase Bank.

There is not much point in continuing down the path that Barack "Dorian Gray" Obama has selected for himself. As long as Barack Obama controls his own destiny, he can reshape his political future even if it means stepping down now.

The longer Barack Obama waits, the more damage will be done to this country as charges of racism will be made should he be "forced" to resign later on even though it was all his own doing.

My only fear in a Barack Obama resignation is the republicans thinking that somehow they have now earned another shot at running things. Maybe a trade could be done, Barack steps down, and 10 democratic politicians agree to resign as well so republicans can gain some footing in congress, but the last thing I want to see is republicans traipsing back into power after doing nothing to help the american people survive against the banking industry that took taxpayer bailout money and then did little to help people stay in their homes.

In many instances banks allowed their automated computerized systems the autonomy to throw people out of their homes, even when those people were making their payments or were denied a way to make their payments to catch up, and since no republicans stepped up to the plate to save these americans, they don't deserve a shot at running things their way, no matter how unethically Barack Obama ran his campaign in 2008.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

It is amazing to see how other parts of the world are adopting credit card debt philosophies that I have personally been advocating for the last two years in my various blogs and websites, including www.credit-card-cap.com and www.credit-protector.com.

Meanwhile, the United States is TOO ARROGANT and TOO BOUGHT OUT BY BANKERS, to do simple, meaningful actions to help their very own citizens pay down almost one TRILLION DOLLARS in CONSUMER CREDIT CARD DEBT!

Monday, September 7, 2009

Years ago I learned the power of standing at a street corner and letting the cars flow by you if you have a message to share. Shelle Curley is collecting up to 45 dollars AN HOUR by standing in the rain collecting donations for her son's future. Apparently Shelle Curley's son won a scholarship to a prestigious dance school, but the scholarship does not cover the entire cost of the tuition.

The internet is an amazing interactive force, but for the non famous, the internet cannot compare with standing on a busy street corner to spread a message, especially if the message is for a worthwhile cause, such as collecting donations for one's own son's tuition.

Could Ms. Curley have done as well collecting money if she had posted about her son on the internet, on blogs, etc? Doubtful.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

(Edit update - Oct. 9, 2009). Apparently most dealerships give money to the republicans anyways, so no matter which dealerships got closed, the number of dealerships that gave to republican politicians was going to be a lot higher.

(Edit update - Nov.10, 2009)

It would be nice to know who first trotted out this smear to see if they did it trick everybody else, or if it was an honest mistake. However, should we be alarmed that dealerships in general give more money to the republicans rather than the democrats? If that is true, why are they doing that?

Friday, September 4, 2009

This is getting confusing. The Republicans are trying to gain a stronghold in the 2010 election cycle by calling Barack Obama a socialist, meanwhile the Socialist movement rips Barack Obama on many fronts and wants nothing to do with him!

However, I still think that the people that used to like Barack Obama also don't see the republicans doing anything to deserve huge gains in next years election, and these swing voters don't want socialism either.

This is getting really weird.

Here is the rather powerful one paragraph critique of Barack Obama's Jekyll and Hyde economic vision.

What is interesting about this second article is that all the actions taken, that the article condemns, were taken under the George Bush Administration. However, the article explains how it was the Wall Street Veterans that Barack Obama happily embraced that have allowed the power of the banks to grow by leaps and bounds AFTER Barack Obama became president.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

I am a proponent of taking smaller steps before bigger steps. I was shocked by this CBS news video that revealed how some states have only one nurse available for over 3,000 students spanning across several schools, one nurse!

How about the present administration prop up the public school nurse program to the federally mandated one nurse per 750 students, first, before taking on bigger issues like healthcare reform. This is what I find problematic with the Barack Obama administration, they ignore the small stuff, attempt to tackle the big stuff, do behind the scene deals to make the big stuff happen, but the result is usually a watered down version of the original concept.

Meanwhile the real stuff, like having a school nurse in every school, or STOPPING CHASE BANK from raising monthly minimum payments on a MILLION of THEIR BEST CUSTOMERS by 150%, the customers who are never late with their payments and ARE faithfully paying down credit card debt, go unresolved by Barack Obama's "team of rivals".

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

(Edit note, Sept.22, 2009 approximately 1 to 2 weeks after writing this article for the September 2, 2009 DailyPUMA edition, Robert Reich's blog returned to it's prior format, which included allowing comments, and amazingly enough, the content seems to have gone back to being more about what is really going on than simply supporting the Barack Obama administration. Glad to have you back, Mr. Reich)

I only discovered Robert Reich's blog around a month or two ago. I was in awe at how dynamic and uncaring of WHO was in power as Mr. Reich's articles seemed to rely on truth and consequences.

In one article, Mr. Reich took a shot at those who were trumpeting the economy as if it was already recovering, and I found that refreshing. A pundit with a purpose other than to tote the political line.

Just as importantly, Mr. Reich ALLOWED COMMENTS under each of his blogs article.

About a two weeks ago I noticed the vibrantly independent Mr. Reich seeming to switch back to supporting more and more of the democratic party line talking points.

To my utter dismay, when I checked in a couple of days ago, NO COMMENTS from readers were allowed, and those from prior articles appear to have disappeared as well.

May I now add, R.I.P. to Mr. Reich's blog for disabling comments. I guess it makes sense that once one closes ranks and becomes either a republican or a democrat clone, allowing comments from readers may prove embarrassing as they are the ones that will begin to notice the shift in content analysis from what will help america to what will help their own party.

It appears Mr. Reich, that you have become, "one of them". I don't know how much longer Mr. Reich's blog will remain on DailyPUMA as the quality of his writing seems to have suffered now that the Stepfordian Syringe has been inserted and the numbing "we good, they bad" vaccine has been applied.

Click to Sign Petition.

About Me

I have 15 Zero Cost Equity Stake Partnerships Available for people with access to specific Brands. I Create Customized Brand Accelerations. Past Successes include 11 year stretch as a Home Health Caregiver for my parents, LA Emmy Winner. Top 25 Tongal Ideationist. 2 Dozen IMDB Production / Editing Credits, Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Internship Scholarship Winner. High School Chess Champion and Academic Challenge Team member. Also am a Video Analysis Expert for Hire, aka The Police Cam Detective. May have supplied critical Dashcam Detective evidence that resulted in a 1.9 million dollar settlement in a wrongful death case, was never credited.